About your Search

20120901
20120930
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
. in june of 2009, fbi director robert mueller acknowledged the immense challenge facing the bureau stating, it is not sufficient for us as an organization to respond to a terrorist attack after it has occurred. it is important for us as an organization to develop the intelligence to anticipate a terrorist attack. developing intelligence, developing facts. and in the past we looked at collecting facts for the courtroom. we now have to think of ourselves as gathering facts and painting a picture of a particular threat understanding the risk and moving to reduce that risk. and i couldn't agree more with the director's statement. and then on november the 5th, 2009, a gunman walked into the soldier readiness center at fort hood, texas, and shouted the classic jihadist terminal la act bar -- allahu akbar and opened fire on soldiers and civilians. he killed 13 and wounded 42 others. this was the most horrific terror attack on u.s. soil since 9/11. today we will examine the facts of the fort hood case as we know them to better understand how these facts that seem so obviously alarming now were so
in benghazi? and to that, the fbi says it is too dangerous to be in benghazi why none of them are there now. is that because the situation has worsened or was the always that dangerous in benghazi? >> i think, on the terrorist attack i mean, as we determined the details of what took place there, and how that, attack took place, that it became clear that there were terrorists who had planned that attack and that's when i came to that conclusion. as again, as to who was involved, what specific groups were involved, i think the investigation that is ongoing hopefully will determine that. >> a day after or, was -- >> took a while to really get some of the feedback from what exactly happened at that location. >> there was a thread of intelligence reporting that that groups in the environment in western, correction, eastern libya were seeking to coalesce but there wasn't anything specific and certainly not a specific threat to the consulate that i'm aware of. and, as far as to the risks that the fbi reported to you, really have to ask them for why they made that determination. i don't know. >> wa
guardia to of course you may have floated airports that bears his name, and at the time, new fbi director j. edgar hoover. they both have spoken at westminster college because bullets audacious invitations. a churchill, winston churchill was in another category altogether. bullet was confident of his success, but needed even with truman so it was still a longshot. after all, churchill received dozens of invitations every month asking them to come and grace colleges like harvard and stanford and oxford with his presence. most of them he turned down, if, in fact, got to him past his army secretary's. but when churchill red mccluer's note, he got to the pot and he saw truman to dinner, he knew that this was it. this was his opportunity. the president of the united states introducing churchill in his home state, the world would have to be watching and listening. so despite this, boiler mact were, westminster college had done it. churchill and truman were coming to form in march 1946. unfortunately bullet mccluer didn't know what he bargained for. it seemed pretty easy to write a letter answer a nice g
, high-ranking member of the f.b.i., director of national intelligence, general clapper and the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff to tell us ostensibly what happened in the tragic death of christopher -- ambassador christopher stevens and three other brave americans. so we gathered down in the secret room, which everybody turns in their phones and blackberries, and we went in and listened to basically a description of america's military disposition in that part of the world, something which certainly does not warrant a super secret briefing. but more importantly than that, when the secretary and the others were asked exactly what happened, what happened here, what caused this tragedy? what was the sequence of events? in fact, it was senators, the ranking member of the intelligence committee, what happened? the answer was, well, that's still an ongoing investigation, and we can't tell you anything. we were supposed to be down there to hear what happened, to hear the administration's version of events of what happened. we were told nothing. we were told absolutely nothing. and
in washington, chief of staff to the fbi director robert meueller and he began the justice department lawyer to fill the position as the attorney general for national security he then served as the homeland security adviser to president george w. bush and is now in private practice in washington. ken, please. spec the panel starts off with a reference to playboy magazine, but i will see if i can catch my breath and go forward. thanks very much, pete. good to be here. i've been asked to talk about three cases. 1i guess you could call a national security case and then number to a more regular case. let me start with the national security case and that is called blabber versus amnesty international. it's actually standing case but it's a standing case relating to a challenge to what's called the fisa amendment act passed in 2008, and was an amendment through a very substantial amount of the foreign intelligence surveillance act passed in 1978, and to understand the standing issue of the stakes at play you have to understand the merits a little bit so let me get into them. >> for those watching
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5